Czech perfumers from Notino were unwilling to disclose the source of their Chanel products. However, they were unsuccessful before the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic and are now required to provide information about their suppliers. This is the story of a legally intriguing dispute in which Chanel took action against the online store Notino for selling Chanel products outside its selective distribution network. The case addressed several key legal issues, including the exhaustion of rights, the legitimacy of selective distribution systems, and, in particular, the obligation of a seller to disclose its sources of supply.
Notino is one of Europe’s largest online retailers of perfumes and cosmetics. Based in Brno, the company serves customers across the continent. Its offering of attractive goods ultimately led to a high-profile dispute that lasted nearly eight years and passed through multiple levels of the judiciary. The case touches upon several fundamental branches of law: intellectual property, competition law, and the protection of trade secrets.
On the other side stands Chanel, the French fashion house with an unparalleled reputation and prestige in the luxury goods market. Luxury is, to a large extent, about control – control over whether intellectual property rights are respected, where products are sold, how they are presented, and who offers them. This very control lies at the heart of the dispute. Like other luxury brands, Chanel carefully monitors its distribution network.
The case is interesting not only for its outcome but also for what it reveals about the tension between two legitimate interests: the right of a manufacturer to control the distribution of its products and the right of a retailer to protect its business relationships.
NOTINO WAS NOT ADMITTED TO THE EXCLUSIVE SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
Let us take a closer look at the concept of selective distribution. In simple terms, it is a business model in which a manufacturer sells its products within a given territory only through contractual partners that meet specific criteria. In the case of luxury cosmetics, these typically include requirements such as a high-end brick-and-mortar store, trained staff, premium presentation, and similar standards.
The case cannot be fully understood without its competition law context. By its nature, selective distribution may restrict competition between distributors of the same brand. However, where the model is purely qualitative – meaning that the nature of the goods requires selective distribution, the supplier selects distributors based on objective criteria that are applied uniformly and without discrimination, and those criteria do not go beyond what is necessary – the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements does not apply.
This approach has also been confirmed by the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for example in the Metro I and Coty Germany cases. A manufacturer of luxury goods may therefore, in principle, say: “We will not do business with you”, while remaining fully compliant with the law. In this particular case, Czech courts also found Chanel’s distribution system to be legitimate.
Notino is not part of Chanel’s network of authorised distributors. Yet it still sells Chanel perfumes. Where does it obtain them from? That is precisely the question Chanel wanted answered. If goods are leaking from authorised distributors, Chanel has a legitimate interest in identifying and stopping such leaks.
FROM THE COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
The dispute began as a fairly typical court case concerning trade secrets and sources of supply. Chanel sought an order requiring Notino to disclose the specific suppliers from whom it had purchased Chanel perfumes. As a supplier, Chanel is entitled to prohibit its authorised distributors from reselling contractual goods to unauthorised distributors. Information about how the perfumes reached Notino is therefore highly relevant for Chanel. The legal basis for the claim was the right to information under Act No. 221/2006 Sb., on the Enforcement of Industrial Property Rights and the Protection of Trade Secrets.
Notino resisted. Information about its suppliers, it argued, constitutes sensitive trade secrets. Disclosing it could harm the company, as Chanel might put pressure on those suppliers and disrupt its supply chain. This argument, however, did not convince the courts. According to the courts of general jurisdiction, Notino’s conduct constituted an unlawful interference with the CHANEL trademark rights. Notino’s appeal was dismissed last year by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic.
After failing before the general courts, Notino filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, alleging a violation of its right to a fair trial. In its decision (case no. IV. ÚS 2399/25) of 20 January 2026, the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as manifestly unfounded. The judgments of the lower courts therefore remain in force, and Notino was required to disclose the origin of the Chanel products. According to a company spokesperson, however, Notino had already done so on 20 March 2024.
WHY DID THE COURTS RULE IN CHANEL’S FAVOUR?
The key argument was Chanel’s right to protect its distribution system. If Chanel operates a selective distribution system – and is entitled to do so under EU law – it must also have the right to know whether, and how, that system is being circumvented. Without knowledge of Notino’s supply chain, Chanel would in practice be unable to enforce its rights. For this reason, the Municipal Court in Prague had already ordered Notino, in its judgment (No. 41 Cm 17/2018), to provide Chanel with the requested information.
The decisions make it clear that the interest in protecting the distribution system and intellectual property rights prevails over Notino’s interest in keeping its business contacts confidential. Chanel had no other effective means of identifying the source of the leakage, and the right to information was therefore considered a necessary and legitimate tool for obtaining the relevant data. The courts thus gave precedence to the trademark owner’s right to information.
The case demonstrates that the right to protect trade secrets is not absolute and may yield where its protection would effectively prevent another party from enforcing its legitimate rights. Any reseller operating outside an authorised distribution network must therefore take into account that its supply relationships may be disclosed based on a court decision.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE MARKET AND LEGAL PRACTICE?
The takeaway from this case is highly practical. It shows that the right to information in the enforcement of intellectual property rights can be a powerful tool. Where a court finds an infringement of trademark rights, it may order the defendant to disclose the origin and distribution chain of the goods in question – even if such information constitutes a trade secret. At the same time, the case confirms that selective distribution systems of luxury brands are legitimate and that Czech courts take their protection seriously.
Do you have questions about selective distribution, parallel imports or the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets? Feel free to reach out to our team.
